Struggling to monitor anti-Muslim comments

From the moment Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was identified on Thursday as the alleged killer in the Fort Hood shootings, managers at The Post’s Web site knew to expect a flood of anti-Muslim comments.

First, they stopped accepting reader comments on stories between midnight and 6 a.m. Friday out of concern that they couldn’t adequately monitor the initial overnight wave of them. When commenting was allowed to resume Friday morning, The Post had assigned four monitors instead of the normal lone staffer to check for comments that might violate the site’s abuse policies.

Those policies cover a wide range of “inappropriate content,” including any comment that “degrades” on the basis of “ethnicity, national origin (or) religion.”

Even with beefed-up monitoring, abusive comments have slipped through in recent days. Some are ugly.

“Islam is a stinking cult, not a religion,” wrote one reader commenting on today’s story about law-enforcement investigations into the background of Hasan.

“Nazis and muslims share the same values about human life. Like none,” wrote another. “I would put a RFID (computer tracking) chip in every muslim in America.. . .And if muslims in America kind of get the feeling they are unwelcome. . .good. There’s the door.”

A reader last Friday, responding to another commenter, urged that writer to “join your fellow muslim animals in a sand bath – because that’s what muslim (sic) are – animals of the lowest sort.” The comment continued: “I didn’t believe in evolution, but in seeing muslims, they certainly prove that man came from slime.” It continued: “Power to the people – the American people to send these scum to Mecca. Let the other sand animals kill each other off.”

Another comment Friday said: “The traitor who did this is a muslim, and all muslims are scumbags.”

"The military would do well to kick every muslim out......at the very least," wrote a reader today. That prompted this response from another: "I would take it a step further and ban immigration from Muslim countries and prohibit Muslims from obtaining US citizenship whether through birth or naturalization. Those who are currently citizens would be made to take and oath or leave including converts."

Another today wrote: "I want a signed notarized condemnation posted outside every mosque in America and written in camel jockey on their prayer rugs."

Jodi Westrick, a producer for the Web site who helps monitor comments, said she was not sure how many had been removed because they were abusive.

“On any given day, we can delete between 150 to 200,” she said. Because of The Post’s extensive coverage of the shootings, including multiple stories each day, she said “I would have to assume” that a higher daily number were being deleted.

She said an increased number of readers had used the “report abuse” link to report comments they felt violate the policies forbidding “inappropriate content.” And the fact that there are four staffers also monitoring the comments means that an increased number are being taken down, Westrick said.

The “threads” of comments on The Post’s Fort Hood-related stories include quite a few from readers who ridiculed those who attacked Muslims. Many urged a civil discussion about the tragedy and Islam. Still, the anti-Muslim comments continue.

“You kind of lose a little faith in people,” said Westrick. Noting that some commenters have tried to steer the conversation to a higher level, she said: “It’s sad, because those people often get downed out by all the noise.”

I would not stop the bigots and xenophobes from having their say. I reject the idea that you should determine who will be read or not read.

It is important that all views are aired even if they are obnoxious and cruel because then they are in the open and theh they can be discussed.

America has spent years demonising Moslems. It has stereotyped them as terrorists and as dangerous and untrustworthy. This is cruel but that is America for you, a violent nation.

Although Moslems are attacked Americans are unable or unwilling to contemplate why there is so much opposition to it in this world. They can't see that other nations do not want America interfering in their affairs. After having spent 200 years telling other nations what they can and cannot do America has found people who see America as attacking them and they are responding in kind. How would Americans react if other nations treated it in the same way it treats Iran? I expect they would be outraged. America has been unwilling to be introspective and it has failed to see that other nations do not want American bombs dropped on their houses.

I am always impressed by the way Americans call Iran dangerous and yet it is America that exports killing. It went into vietnam, Iraq and LAtin America. MAny of its actions would, today, be called acts of terrorism and yet Americans are unwilling to contemplate that its overt and covert actions that are designed to destabilise other nations should be classed as terrorist acts.

The one thing that Americans care more about than killing foreigners is rising gas prices. Yes, America has its priorities in the right place. What would one expect from so-called Christians who willingly ignore the commandment that says thou shall not kill. The American addendum is that thou shall kill if you are an American and you want to kill.

Until America engages in introspection it will not understand the deep rooted hostility that attaches to its violent behaviour. For instance, why should Palestinians have any affection for the US when it gave European Jews permission to establish a Palestinian state in the lnd where they lived? What kind of reaction does America expect when it supports the cruelty and indecency practiced by Israel. I know that some of you are so silly and unprincipled that you back Israel as though it is a football team and that you do not care about injustice but then of course there is a price that you have to pay for your actions.

The hostility directed towards Moslems does not occur because Moslems are different to mainstream Americans it occurs because Americans are violent xenophobes and because Americans like having a minority to kick in the guts.

The Post needs to be careful here. Many people, including people who worry that Israel is too aggressive, despise the ease with which Islam spawns Jihad Fanatics. There IS a connection between Imams and the violent Islamists and attacks on non-Muslims.

I am surprised that the Post is so sensitive to Muslims feelings when they printed that abominable hate speech by the obnoxious bloviator William Donohue in On Faith. Donohue's pro=Right Wing, anti-human screed against anyone who does not share his Torquemada-like Catholicism was an insult to many of us practicing Catholics.

I agree, reporting abuse through Outlook is cumbersome. I do report abuse when I see it, and try to stick to the WaPo's catgories, not my own biases. I much prefer the format some other online papers use, with a popup showing categories and a box for explanation.

I do think the WaPo and other online papers have every right to have abuse reporting and to remove posts that are offensive by its standards. Remember, the First Amendment only applies to government suppression of speech. The WaPo, being a private entity, has every right to control what is published in its pages and on its website.

I would like to see three changes - a way to report abuse that does not involve Outlook, more prompt review of reported posts, and some way of marking a post that has been reported and reviewed but left on the site if the WaPo decides the post is "offensive" in its reviewer's judgment.

If suddenly we were hired by the Post to review posts, we would find within minutes that the way we would do it would provoke criticism or even outrage by those who would do it a different way.

Gathering news, and responses to news, is inevitably a filtering process. Some stories are always left out. Posting posts is also a filtering process. Any decision that says, "Include this, but exclude that" is open to critisim at some level, but without those filters we find ourselves in a world of chaos. But that's not the way life works. As individuals, as reporters, as newspapers, we are always drawn to coherence.

So, I am grateful that there is a staff of four who pay attention to the filtering process and do the best they can.

bobmoses, Beg your pardon, but I think if you were to keep a count of aggravated insults (i.e. hate-speech), the number of insults to religious groups would pale in comparison to the racial, urban/rural, and nonsensical-political. This last is a special smear category where all insults are piled together and republican or democrat or "independent" they are usually some variation on "So-and-so is a nazi-commie-lover-hater who eats slugs". Sexual practices are usually involved somewhere along the line.

When we look at recent US history, it's no great wonder that the moral tone has declined. It's a sign of Abu Ghraib decadence.

I'm confused about what the Ombudsman wants to prohibit. Is it hateful speech about a certain religion, or is it any comment that happens to be critical of Islam? I ask because many Muslims take the position that their religion cannot be criticized. (Take the Danish cartoon controversy, for example.)

I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists, or that all terrorists are Muslim, or even that Muslims are any more or less law-abiding and peaceful than anyone else. My problem with Islam is that it refuses to accept any critical analysis of itself despite some obvious flaws in practice. I cannot respect a religion that demands unquestioning respect.

What, exactly, is the goal of this piece? You begin with a discussion of the stepped-up efforts to police the site for abusive & bigoted comments, then follow it up with examples of exactly the kind of stuff you're supposedly trying to keep off the site.

"Beg your pardon, but I think if you were to keep a count of aggravated insults (i.e. hate-speech), the number of insults to religious groups would pale in comparison to the racial, urban/rural, and nonsensical-political."

Not going to disagree with you, but all of that is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. I was pointing out that the Post is giving Muslims a protected status that no other groups receive. Your comments only reinforce my point, so thank you I guess.

"This last is a special smear category where all insults are piled together and republican or democrat or "independent" they are usually some variation on "So-and-so is a nazi-commie-lover-hater who eats slugs". Sexual practices are usually involved somewhere along the line."

There is no doubt that this is prevelant in comment sections, but again, this has nothing to do with what I said.

"When we look at recent US history, it's no great wonder that the moral tone has declined. It's a sign of Abu Ghraib decadence."

What an absurd comparison. The two are utterly unrelated and a thin pretense for your anti-American sentiment. Apparently, while you claim to deplore character attacks on broad groups on comment boards, you then go on to do just that. The only difference is that your mindless hatred is directed towards Americans instead of Democrats or Republicans.

If you want to sit on the other side of the world and claim that you know about the "moral tone" of America by extrapolating the incivility of the comment threads onto the general population, that is your right. There are no laws that I am aware of that prevent people from making silly judgments based on their own ignorance and prejudices.

"The hostility directed towards Moslems does not occur because Moslems are different to mainstream Americans it occurs because Americans are violent xenophobes and because Americans like having a minority to kick in the guts."

LOL. And this hypocrite was whining about Muslims being demonized. Looks like he knows a lot about demonization.

Anybody else got any silly blanket attacks against Americans? Surely there are some more silly stereotypes that can be ascribed to 300 million people.

Don't forget that there are at least two tiers of comment monitoring -- the monitoring for publication as described by Andrew Alexander. But there is undoubtedly a hidden monitoring going on in parallel with the WashPost staff, but hidden from them, conducted by the CIA/NSA as they collect all traffic to/from the WashPost. Don't forget the gigantic new data centers that are going to be built in Utah and Texas are being built for a reason -- the need for yet more capacity to gather EVERYTHING.

It seems that we are trying to protect the Muslim Community and I can understand that. Not all Muslims are jhihadists, however, it is clear from the information the public has gotten that Hasan was blatanly Muslim and certain conversations should have sent up red flags. They were ignored, why?

However, since Obama the Muslim has taken office, we are not allowed to say "terrorists" or "jhihad" as that is no longer politically correct and I'm sure that the military has also been warned even though they work under different military laws when it comes to a soldier. They failed, why, because they've been told to be politically correct. For that 13 military personnel had to die on American soil. Why?

We are inundated with Muslims within our military and even in our administration. If we do not keep better track of these people, then Bid Laden will have won after more Muslims try to blow us up. He has vowed that the war will be on our terrain and he has kept this promise.

How many Muslisms have been picked up by the police and the FBI just in the last few weeks who tried to carry out terrorist plots? How long can we stay naive?

I feel sorry for the Muslim Community but we have to protect ourselves and our federal agencies better get on the ball to make sure that the American People are safe.

This pretense at criticism of would be Muslim lynchers is the height of hypocrisy. If Andrew Alexander or anyone at The Washington Post really cared about anti-Muslim hate and calls for genocide, they would tell the truth about the transparent false flag terrorist operation at Fort Hood. The fact that this mass murder was automatically assumed to be Islamic terrorism proves that it was a set up.

According the original AP report and General Cone, the shooter was killed and two soldiers were arrested as suspects.
__________

Eleven people and a gunman were killed and some 30 wounded in a shooting at a U.S. Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, CNN television said Thursday.

The gunman was a soldier, and two other soldiers have been detained as suspects, CNN said, citing a Fort Hood spokesman.

Officials were quoted as saying they believe three gunmen were involved. At least two of the gunmen wore military uniforms, CNN said.

The incident took place at the sports dome, now known as the soldier readiness area, CNN said.

Fort Hood is home to the Warrior Combat Stress Reset Program, which is designed to help soldiers overcome combat stress issues.
*****

I've got a few questions.

Why did officials initially say that THREE gunmen were involved and that TWO of the gunmen wore military uniforms? Why were these two other soldiers detained as suspects? Why were they released?

How did the gunman go from being reportedly killed to stable condition later in the day? How did he go from stable condition yesterday to being in a coma today?

The civilian policewoman who allegedly shot Hasan was also reportedly killed, only to also survive later. How could reporting from "officials" be this inaccurate after several hours?

I tend to believe the earliest news reports are the most accurate, before the "official story" is presented, where it gets repeated ad nauseum into "facts." Just like the numerous reports of "secondary explosions" on 9/11 by many different people which were never repeated again. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread517407/pg1

Every shill on the Internet is playing the Muslim angle to the hilt. Someone had to organize this propaganda campaign, and it was obviously the same people who planned the murders and every Zionist false flag operation since Kristallnacht.
_______________

'Three people are involved. That, by definition, means it is a conspiracy.'

•Curiouser and Curiouser: -Video surfaces of alleged shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, attending Homeland Security Task Force conference --Major Hasan's name appears on page 29 of The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute's 'Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration' --Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force - April 2008 - January 2009. The report is dated 19 May 2009.
•Numerous media accounts: Major Hasan's neighbors, medical trainers, colleagues, friends, cousin, uncle-- even the store owner to where he bought his food -- all heap praise on Major Hasan's temperament. This appears to be psy-ops, six ways to Sunday. --LRP
•The alleged shooter received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001 and is a graduate of Virginia Tech. Early on Thursday, he showed no signs of worry or stress when he stopped at 7-Eleven for his daily breakfast of hash browns, said Jeannie Strickland, the store's manager. "He came in (Thursday) morning just like normal," she said, "nothing weird, nothing out of the ordinary."

Breaking: Army: Shooting Suspect Taken Off Ventilator --Army officials: Hasan is 'not able to converse.' 07 Nov 2009 A U.S. Army spokesman says the man authorities say went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood has been taken off a ventilator but still remains in intensive care at a military hospital. Spokesman Col. John Rossi told reporters on Saturday at Fort Hood that he is not sure if Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is able to communicate. Hasan was shot during an exchange of gunfire during Thursday's attack. The military moved him on Friday to Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio, about 150 miles southwest of Fort Hood. Army officials have said Hasan is "not able to converse." http://www.legitgov.org/attack_on_fort_hood_051109.html

How convenient that he can not converse. Is anyone allowed to see him to prove that he is still alive and is really at the Brooke Medical Center?

This is a link to 'Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration' http://www.gwumc.gwu.edu/hspi/policy/PTTFProceedingsReport.pdf

Except for me, no one on this blog questions whether Major Hasan is guilty, despite all the contradictory absurdities and despite the overwhelming stench of false flag terrorism. I have yet to see any proof that Hasan is even a Muslim, but participating in the Homeland Security Task Force conference does not scream Muslim.

This is a small part of an outstanding expose of false flag terrorism, including the low yield nuclear bombing in Bali.

The Beltway Sniper

Beginning with the shooting of a James D. Martin in a parking lot in
Wheaton, Maryland on October 2, 2003, the "beltway Sniper" began a campaign
of sudden, random assassinations that would terrorize the Washington area,
not to mention the nation, for weeks....

In at least three of the shootings, a white van was seen in the area. One
witness had an encounter with a white van that tried to get past him in
heavy traffic, the driver frantically waving him off. He described a short,
slightly built man who appeared to be "middle eastern."

Matthew Dowdy, a witness to the murder of Linda Franklin, said he saw the
shooter, a man with an "olive-skinned complexion," get out of a white van,
take careful aim and shoot Ms Franklin. He was later arrested for giving
"false information." Dowdy was said by police to have a criminal record. It
is not known whether his testimony was discredited on this basis alone or if
there was any other indication of how Police could know that Dowdy's
statement was false, much less that he had "knowingly" given a false
statement.

We are hard-pressed to imagine any reason that police could have for
claiming that Dowdy had filed a false report. At the early stages of an
investigation, no serious report is rejected out of hand. The only
explanation we can think of is that FBI personnel liaising with the police
pushed Chief Moose to make the arrest to prevent Dowdy's testimony from
being used by the defence in the trials of Muhammad and Malvo that would
come later.

Around Oct 20, an auto rental employee at Dulles airport found a .223
calibre shell casing in a white rental van. An anonymous source "close to
the investigation" described the casing as having the wrong calibre. A spent
casing of the same calibre was also found outside the school in the October
7 shooting.

On October 22, police arrested a man in a white van. They had been on the
lookout for a white van that fitted the behavior pattern of other white vans
spotted near their respective crime scenes. The police converged on the van,
behavior pattern of other white vans spotted near their respective crime
scenes.

The police converged on the van, shotguns drawn. The man surrendered
peaceably. Little further information was made available about this suspect
except that he turned out to be an "illegal immigrant." He was apparently
released. This story was effectively buried in the media by the discovery of
a note left near a recent shooting on the same day. Police refused to
divulge the contents of the note except to address the sniper publicly in a
dramatic news conference, telling him that they agreed to his proposal for
contact. What about the man in the white van? The person who left the note
was, by implication, not the man in the white van. As a police spokesperson
put it, "That is the only person Chief Moose wants to talk to."

It turned out that Chief Moose really wanted to talk to someone driving a
blue Chevrolet Caprice, thanks to the note, which not only claimed
responsibility for the shootings, but mentioned a liquor store holdup on
October 21. (This would be a reasonable move for someone who wanted to be
caught.) Police naturally looked up the vehicle description from that
incident, finding it to be a blue Chevrolet Caprice. Officers found such a
vehicle at a rest stop in Frederick County 50 miles northwest of Washington
in the early morning hours of October 24. The car proved to contain two
males of Jamaican descent named John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. The
trunk of the vehicle had a sniper rifle, a bipod and two large holes in the
lid through which a rifle could be aimed. The shooter had evidently hidden
in the trunk of the car to do his shooting.

At the trial Muhammad initially represented himself: " I had nothing to do
with these crimes. They know this, and that's why they are trying to impose
everything at one time . . ." The opening statement was long and rambling
and Muhammad was clearly out of his depth. He evidently did not trust his
defense lawyers. He tried too hard to impress people with what he thought
was technical language. He appeared to be hinting that he knew it was a
frame up. At one point he said he knew what did happen and what didn't
happen, attempting to sound ominous, perhaps.

There is ample reason to suspect that the convictions of Muhammad and Malvo
were frameups. The white van figures too prominently in many of the early
reports and the extreme form of rejection of Dowdy's account of the shooting
of Linda Franklin remains a major stumbling block to giving this case a
straightforward interpretation. We can only assume that the material
evidence in the blue Caprice was planted in the trunk. The rifle could then
easily be the same rifle used in the shootings.

The purpose of the attacks was certainly to keep the terror profile high
domestically, as well as abroad. The timing of the attacks may also have
enhanced the passage of a bill to authorize the use of armed force against
Iraq. The bill was introduced October 2 and passed October 10. While the
bill was before the House, an average of one person a day was killed by the
sniper.

There is an increased awareness of the barbarianism and hatred Muslims show towards Western civilization. Many Americans view all Muslims as enemies. It is a natural, human reaction to do this. Fear and hatred both are defensive reactions to external threat.

There can be no doubt that Islam is an external threat to America. Denial of this fact seems to be the hallmark of liberal media. It is what fuels the popularity of news outlets like FOX NEWS and talk radio. FOX NEWS seems to tell it like it is and does not hold back for "political correctness".

Most Americans want all the facts, straight out. If that means calling out a certain religion and its toxic ideology, then so be it.

What really boils the blood of heartland America is when a snooty, liberal, talking head tries to compare Christianity to Islam. Compare the body count for the past 20 years and you will se there is no comparison. It is ridiculous!

Any Muslim worldwide knows that you just can’t shout Allah Akbar, that means “God is the Greatest,” to justify the Ford Hood shooting rampage ending in a killing 13 men and women and an injury tally of 31. It is simply a cowardly act by mentally sick individual and has nothing to do with his religion affiliation. Such anti-Islamic Propaganda has no place with the civilized nations of all religions. There is a thin thread between intelligent and stupidity. Hope you keep it in mind.

Any Muslim worldwide knows that you just can’t shout Allah Akbar, that means “God is the Greatest,” to justify the Ford Hood shooting rampage ending in a killing 13 men and women and an injury tally of 31. It is simply a cowardly act by mentally sick individual and has nothing to do with his religion affiliation. Such anti-Islamic Propaganda has no place with the civilized nations of all religions. There is a thin thread between intelligent and stupidity. Hope you keep it in mind.

drbahnas shows the typical excuses used by apologists for jihad. Yes, the simple phrase "god is great" does not define a Muslim jihadist. However, the use of that phrase as you slaughter people is. The use of that after openly and repeatedly stating that every Muslim should automatically respond to any attack on any Muslim is straight out of the core definition of jihad espoused ever since the time of Mohammed.

To deny that Islam is the most violent major religion in the world and that jihad is a core component of Islam is just a false as claiming that all Muslims are violent.

When you claim that any objective look at Islam is "anti-Islamic Propaganda", you are also supporting jihad, where anyone who even vaguely questions Islam is wrong and should not be able to speak. That is as great a danger as the violence regular perpetrated in Islam's name on every continent except for Antarctica.

It's all about misunderstanding...we're told by the media and our president that when a Muslim goes off and shouts religious slogans while on a murderous rampage, it has nothing to do with Islam...we're leaping to conclusions because we don't understand the "religion of peace"...or we're being close-minded/bigoted...it's our misunderstanding of what truly happened or motivated the killer(s). Or perhaps it's the terrorists who were doing the misunderstanding...after all, many of them had devoted years of their lives to reading the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, and came away insisting they were following his teachings...only doing what is written in the Koran/Hadith/Surrahs...(they're right)...and they came away misunderstanding Islam...it's all a big misunderstanding...unfortunately over 13,000 lethal attacks, against infidels, have been carried out in the name of Allah since 9/11. Not being able to identify/verbalize a problem isn't usually a good omen for future solutions.

My personal opinion, based on the limited facts available, is that the Fort Hood shootings were done by a mentally unstable man, and that his religion should not be blamed, any more than we blamed Christianity when Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including women and children.

While many people are quick to claim that we are endangered by Muslims, any way you look at it, the United States has killed many more Muslims by several orders of magnitude than the number of Americans killed by Muslims.

As payback for some 3000 people killed on 9/11, we invaded a country that had NOTHING to do with the attack. Anywhere from 100,000-1,000,000 Iraqis have died, most of them Muslim.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, those who fight against the people who invaded their country (us) get labeled as terrorists. Of course, any American who fought against an invading force would be lauded as a hero and a freedom fighter.

I feel for the families and friends of those murdered at Fort Hood. But the people of Pakistan have endured some 60 such events in the last three years, via American drone attacks. Those attacks have killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda, plus 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. Imagine having a Fort Hood type incident every three weeks, for years. Wouldn’t it be natural to hate the country that was causing them?

Do we really have the right to call others barbaric, uncivilized, or terrorists? Jesus Christ (not a Muslim), said “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

While it is nice too see that the Post has some sensibilities, I do not understand why hurtful slurs against a large group are worse than those against innocent individuals. I refer of course to Mr. Alexander's early defense of unfettered and uncensored joy over the a businessman's suicide. That was just as hateful spleen which must deeply have hurt the surviving family.

I also wonder that the Post is perfectly willing to allow slurs against the Mormon religion and other religions currently unfashionable amongst the elites.

Mr. Alexander is slime, the newspaper he defends is hypocritical, and his column is rot.

Other online publications simply provide no link for a comment page for some (or even the majority) of articles/columns. From the opening sentence of this omblog post, it appears the Post was (appropriately) skittish and expected filthy, ignorant (and deliberately provocative/antagonistic) bigoted comments. May I suggest--remove the opportunity to comment on some of the more predictably bigot-baiting pieces.

Is it racist to ask why, after 911, more Moslem groups in America did not come forth to condemn what happened?

Is it racist to ask why, after Wall Street reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped in Pakistan and forced to say "I am an American and I am a Jew" and was beheaded that no Moslem group in America came forth to condemn this awful, awful act?

Is it racist to ask why so many Moslem groups in America are not only silent when innocent Israeli men, women, and children are blown to pieces by suicide bombers in restaurants, supermarkets, and on busses, but they attempt to justify these acts?

Is it racist to ask why Moslem groups in America have been strangely silent about the Moslem on Moslem atrocities being perpetrated in the name of Islam every day in Iraq?

The fact is that since our 911 Islamic terrorists have murdered thousands in Israel, England, Spain, and the Moslem countries of Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Tunesia, Morocco, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia. Perhaps if more more Moslem groups here and around the world came forth publicly and issued condemnations of these horrible acts of murder in the strongest most possible way then perhaps there might be one less Major Hasan time bomb ready to go off.

This paper doesn't monitor or remove 90% of the offensive comments that appear, even when they are asked to by readers. I'm not talking specifically about any one group being on the recieving and, racist, antisemetic, mysoginist, you name it, it has appeared in the comments of a WaPo article. If the comments were removed that would be one thing, but blatantly bigoted comments will appear, and even after repeated attempts to have the comments removed, no one at WaPo will respond.
Frankly, I hope that the ACLU or the ADL will sue and force WaPo to institute measures to monitor and remove egregious comments. At the very least, there needs to be someone publicly responsible so that when things are not removed after repeated attempts, there is a person who can be held to account for the failure.

The paper is hypocritical as the ombudsman shows. He rails against blanket statements against Muslims, but notice the last sentence of the very first post: "The hostility directed towards Moslems does not occur because Moslems are different to mainstream Americans it occurs because Americans are violent xenophobes and because Americans like having a minority to kick in the guts."

Americans are violent xenophobes? That's a disgustingly negative generalization. I reported it as abuse a number of days ago. It's still there.

It seems that abuse is welcomed as long as it follows PC neo-liberal bigotry. The paper has no intention of being even handed about the issue.

If the Post required a traceable address and telephone number from anyone who comments here---as they do for printed letters to the editor---the xenophobic and racist comments would be reduced to a trickle. The people making those comments are secure in their bigotry only because the Post gives them a forum for their rants. Put a little sunlight on them and they'd back down from those racist comments like the cowards they are.

And the irony is that it's unlikely that 10% of them ever buy the print edition, meaning that the Post is even subsidizing their screeds. Xenophobia and a willingness to mooch generally go hand and hand.

AUM.
Islamist terrorism is now a global phenomenon. The more our civilised world makes an endeavour to placate the Muslim radicals the more violent they become. Now some misinformed men are floating the theory that at present there is a clash of gultures. The Hindus, Christians, the jewish people and the rest of the world have got together to target the Muslim world. This theory is fallacious.
America is giving a fabulous aid of money and materials to Pakistan; also bringing some semblance of peace, law and order in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If Christians were opposed to Muslim interests, why will America, a predominantly Christian country, help Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan? I think the Muslim intellectuals should enlighten their bigot co-religionists and then the situation may improve.
All countries should deal firmly with Mullahs and preachers of Islam who on fridays spread hatred against the nationalists in their post-prayer sermons.Such seditious elements should be brought to trial for sedition.
Now no one should ignore wrong acts or omissions of Muslim terrorists just to be "politically correct". Maintaining silence or aloofness is not correct and amounts to siding with the Islamist terrorists.
Finally, taking a relook at Major Nidal Hasan, one finds that his wayward behaviour and outbursts against America when it came to discussing Islam was ignored bt seniors and it resulted in loss of 13 lives of innocent persons.
The psychiatrists and sexologists may wish to analyse whether sexual starvation in the land of the plenty had something to do with this act of pre-meditated murder of comrades-in-arms. At 39 the killer Major had no wife, no girl friend and no one to keep company with. he had plenty of time to contact ASl Qaida and other extrmist Muslims who are sworn enemies of the civilized world. The killer could be a brooder, a loner and a misogynist to kill recruits and women, including a pregnant woman.
There is only one punishment for Major Hasan: to be sentenced to Death by hanging or a lethal injection.
For additional exchange of views, please contact;
upvanom@yahoo.com Thanks.

I can understand the Post monitoring comments for obscenities. But, otherwise, the First Amendment guarantees us the right to have and express any opinions, no matter how offensive they are to others.

If the Post is going to make this forum available for speech, people have a right to speak as they see fit. More important, we have the right to read those comments, to see what our fellow citizens are thinking. That's political discourse.

All I know about Muslims is what I read in the papers. And, according to the papers, they're all murderous nutjobs. In the UK, Muslims have made no bones about wanting to supplant the democratic government with Sharia law. Is Western democracy in danger from Islam? Is this an important question? Shouldn't we feel free to discuss it?

The problem with your policy is - how do YOU define what is anti-muslim? If particular tenets of a religion are abhorent, is an accurate description of the abhorent tenets forbidden under Post policy? If I find abhorent the muslim tenet that muslims should not befriend outsiders, will the Post forbid me from discussing that? If I find abhorent the koranic passage that instructs a man who is unable to find a female muslim who will marry him to go ahead and marry a slave instead - will the Post forbid me from saying so? If I find abhorent the muslim practice of literally stoning to death homosexuals - am I forbidden by Post policy from saying that? If I find abhorent muslim practice of finding a female rape victim guilty of responsibility for her own rape - am I forbidden from discussing this? I guess we'll soon find out!

By censoring "inappropriate content" you have found a weak justification for coddling murderous jihadists. By all means, let's not hurt the Muslims' feelings, but do let's examine Islam. In the final analysis, might we find something dangerous in the ideology and its adherents?

"Answer me this: If we can't identify who the enemy is – and, in fact, refuse to do so – haven't we lost already?" as stated by David Kupelian of WorldNetDaily.com. He emphasizes the conundrum we face if we can't call terrorism what in reality it is. An Overseas Contingency Plan, A Man Caused Disaster, Freedom Fighters, you'll never deal with or solve a problem if you can't first identify it.

Of the world's approximately 1.2 billion Muslims, an estimated 10-15% are of the militant "Islamist" strain. That equates to roughly 120 million Muslim Extremists who "love death more than we love life", as Major Hasan said prior to killing thirteen people and wounding 30+ at Ft. Hood. Remember, they don't have to be a part of a group or terrorist's ring to perpetrate the carnage we have seen just recently.

To force people to speak in "politically correct" terms is to intimidate those people to the point that they are rendered powerless or impotent when it comes to confronting this problem. In effect you are playing right in to the hands of the enemy, and showing yourself to be weak.

Again, according to Mr. Kupelian, "we have learned that, while we were asleep in this country -- with our borders wide open, giving high-technology to our enemies -- an unknown number of terrorists also have set up shop in America, along with their supporters, sympathizers, apologists and funders". There are upward of 4-7 million Muslims in this country, so if 10% are fundamentalist Muslims then do the math. Get over the Politically Correct mentality, and confront the problem of Islamic Terrorism head on. We may step on a few people's "feelers" in the process, and that is unintentional, but we'll survive as a nation.

I agree with other commenters here. You should not be suppressing content. Perhaps you can "bleep out" bad language, but it is wrong to suppress speech. There is a lot of paranoia and anger right now, suppressing it won't get rid of it. It just sends it underground where it festers and leads to violence.

People have a right to be angry. They've been robbed blind by banks, wall street, and folks like Bernie Madoff. The problem is, determining what to get angry about, and what rationally to do about it. Blaming the Arabs (Or Jews) is convenient but not very productive...

Bigotry and xenophobia in the form of words I can tolerate. Bigotry and xenophobia in the form of murdering 13 unsuspecting people and one unborn child I cannot tolerate. Please do not minimize the latter by maximizing the former.

We should let the haters spew forth their bile. If not, then we sanitize their craziness and make them politically more viable. Any news organization should let all people say whatever they want, then let the marketplace of ideas work. If these people are censored, their views will grow and fester till the overcome the rest.

It isn't just the readers and their comments. CK often walks the thin line between commentator and agitator accusing and insulting persons and nations at an amazing rate. I see the showman in it, but I fail to see any art or wisdom.

I for one would like to see a little more editorial control of that "star" writer.